Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IN THE SL3PREME COURT OF 01110
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OFFAIRFIELD COUh1`I'Y, OHIO,
v,
Appellant,
CASE NO, 2013-1085
On..A.ppeal fromthe I'ranklin County Courtof Appeals, Tenth Appellate DistriGt
SCOTT J. NALLY, DIRECTOR OF Court of Appeals Case No. 11-AI'-508ENVIKON1v1ENTA.L PROTL;CTION FOR ERAC Case No. 235929'I'I-IE STA"I'E OF OHIO,
Appzllee,
MERIT BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE O1110 MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (OMI1) AND
COIJNTY SANITAR^.' .E.+NGINF.laRS ASSOCIATION OF fJI:IIO (CSEAO) INSUPPORT OF FAIRFIELD CO"C;NTY BOARD OF Cf3MMISSIOiNERS
STEPHEN N. HA.UCzIIEY (0010459)Counsel ofRecordFROS'F BROWN TODD LLC301 E. Fourth Str.eetCincimiati, OH 45202Telephone (513) 651-6127Facsimile: (513) 651-6981shaugile.q@fb tlaw, comSTEI'HEN J. SMI'I'H (0001344)FttOST BROWN TODD LLC10 W. Broad StreetColumbus, Oh.io 43215Telephone: (614) 464-1211Facsi7nile: (614) [email protected] GO`l HERMAN (0000504)OHIO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE175 S. Third Street, #510Colurxibus, Ohio 43215-7100Telephone: (614) 221-4349Facsimile: (614) 221-4390jgoth<.t-man @colLiznbus.t-r.con-iCo2.rnsel fai^ Ohio Municipal League andCounty ;Sanitary Engineers Associcrtion O,f 'C1hio
, < _ ..:sS
STEI'HEiwi P. SAMUELS (0007979)Counsel ofRecordJOSEPH M. REIDY (0030346)FROST BROWN TODD LLCOne Columbus, Suite 230010 West Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215=3484(614) 464-1211(614) 464-1737 (facsimile)[email protected]@Ibtlaw.comCounsel for Appellatzt Board Of C'omrrzis:sionet:sfbtr Fairfield Countv; Ohio
ivTIC-IAEL DeWINE (00091 81)A'IT()].3.NFY G1:NERAL OF OHIOERIC I . :Viti KPHY (0083284)State SolicitorCounsel qf RecorclSA.MUjEI, C. PETERSON (00831432)Deputy SolicitorL. SCOTT HELKOWSKI (0068622)ALANA R. SHOCKEY (0085234)Assistant Attorneys GeneralOhio Attorney General's Office30 East Broad Street; 17th FloorColtzmbus, Ohio 432] [email protected]
,oliioattorneygeneral. govSamuel.peterson@la,[email protected]@ohioattorneygeneral.govCounsel,for°Appel.l.ee Scott NaliyDirector of 'Envirorarnental Protection
L INDA S. WOGGOn (0059082)Exeeutive Vice PresidentOHIO CHAN.II3E^ OF C(3MMERCE230 East Tovvn StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215Iwoggon0gohiochamber.c:ornCounsel for Ainicus Ohio C.lzanr_her o,f'Cotnnaerce
ii
JESSICA E, D.F,YIONT1; (0072414)Counael vf RecordAIVI3IZEW O. ETI'EI2 (0085013)SQUIRE SANDERS LLP2000 Huntington Center41. South High Street.Colu.m.btis. Oliio 43215JOHN D, LA7ZAIZETTI (0080780).SQIIIRi^ SANDFRS LLP4900 Key Tower127 Public SquareClevelarrd, Ohio 44114j essiea: [email protected] (-a)[email protected] for A7nicats Association of'C31iioMetropolitan PG'ustervatei' Agencies
iii
^. TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
1. TABLE t3FC'ONTENTS..... . .. .., . _ .. ... . ....... ........... ..............iv
II, TABLE OF AUTI-IORITIES .,... ,............>... . . ............. ....< . . .... ..... .... ...;.. ............... ,,. ........vi
TII. STATEMENT OF ISSUE FOR REVIEW... ................. .....................:.: ...... ..... ..:.,......1.
TV. 5TA1'EMENT OF INTEREST OIr AMCCU.S CURIAE ...... ...........,.., ........,.............::;..:1
V. STATUTORY/REGULATORY FiZAMEWORK ..: ......... ..:.>..... .,..<.,.. ...........•. . ....,.......3
VI. STATEMEN7' OF FAC'I'S ....... ..... .. ...... ... .. .. .... . ..... . ,4
VII, ARGUNIENT. .... ......... ........ . . ... .. . .. .... .... ..............., .......... . . . . . . .. .....4
A. The Big Walrrut Creek Watershed TMDL Establishes A New Standard for WaterQuality for Phosphorus and Tlaerefore Must Undergo Ru.lema:kizig Pursuant to theRequirements of R.C. 6111,041 .......... . ........... .....,.... ..... ... . ... .............
B. Recluiring Ohio EPA to Comply with Ohio's Statutory Rulemaking Procedures
Provides Special Protectiozis for Ohio's Counties aiid Mtinicipalities ............. ........:...7
C. If TivIDLs are not Required to Be Promulgated Uiicter Ohio Law, Ohio EPA will IlaveVirtually Un.fettered Discretion to Establish Vv'aterbody-Specific Standards Across theState, Further Straining the Resources of Ohio's Local Governments ............................ 9
VIII. CONCLUSION .. .... ............ .. ...:......... ... .... <...... . .........:..:.........:: ...... ><.. ........ ,.,............... 9
IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE........ .. • ............. ........ ...., .... .... 10
IV
Ilf. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.page
CASI;S
7.3oarcl of Commissioners nf Fait;field County, Ohio v. Director° of Envir onnaental .PT°oicctirn,2013-sJhio-2106 ¶ 1 (10`hApp> Dist. 2013) ., . .., .. ...... ..... ..... ....5
Citizens Committee to Pr°ese.rve Lake Logan v: Yb`illia;ns, EBR No. 75-40, 1977 WL 10269 (May27, 1977) over•rzclecl on other grounds, Citizens Committee to Preserve Lake Logan v. Willitrna,s;10 App. No. 77AP-755, 1978 WL 216923 (June 22, 1978) ... ... ....:::: ...............:,. ....:.:.: ......:::;6
Oxford Mining Company, LLC v. Director of Environnzental Protection, ERAC No. 12-256581,2013 WL 5314482 (Septen-iber 18, 2013). ...................... ..... . . 6,7
STt?►.T IITES
R:C: 6111:041 .............. .... ..... .......... .. ....... .. ... ............................................... 4,6
R:C.6111.01 ... ........... .... ..... ......................... ............. .............. .....,...5
R.C. 127.18 .... ................ ..... ..... ... .. .. .. . .. . 7,8
R.,C. 1 l 9.03 ...... ........... ...... $
R.C. 121.39 .............. ...... ............. ...................8
RULES
Ohio AcIn2. Code Chapter 3745-1 ........... .... .... . . ........ . . .... ......... . . . . . . .... ...... ....:5
Oliio Adm. Code 3745-1-07, Table 7-11...... . . .. . . .. ........... . .... ... . ...... . .. . .. .. . .. .... ..5
Ohio Adm. Code 3745-1-04 . ...,.. . .... , . ... .......... .... ..... < . ............ . .. .. . 5
OTI I F R.A. (7THOkU'.C I ES
`"what is Non-Point Source Pollution"(available at iit.tp:I/water,e:pa.govlpolwaste/npsr`whatis,cfm}'.. . ..3
"Ohio's Nonpoizit Source Progran,i"(available crt http://Epa.ohio,gov/dsw/np5/iizdex.aspx). ..: ............ . ..... . ... . ..... . ........... . ....... . ..........3
Joint Exhibit 13 ("Total iVlaxinluin Daily Loads for the Big Walnut Creek Watershed") ......... 5
v
111. ST ATENIENT OF THE ISSUEFORRE1TIEW.
The issue presented for review in the case .Sub juclice is narrowly confined to whezher
the Big Walnut Creek watershed TMDL must be prorrialgated as a rule under Ohio law before
Fairfield Coun-ty and the other affected stakeholders in the watershed can be subjected to new,
binding, and potentially very expensive, pollutant litnits.
However, in a broader sense, th.e question is whether OI1io EPA. can use its TMDL
atithority to establislY binding vvatershed-based, or even waterbody-specific, standards of water
quality across the State of Ohio without first affording the protections associated with
rulenialeing, when the san-ze Agency i.s obligated by statute to afford those protections when it
establishes standards of water quality for the State as a v,lhctle, Because there is no
meanizlgful dirferetrce between standards of water quality imposcd in this or any other TMDL
developed by Ohio EPA and statewide standards of water cltxality developed by the saiiie
Ageiicy, the answer is tlzatr Ohio EPA must follow Ohio's requirenients for rulemaking when
developing the Big Wa]riut Creek watershed TMDL and all other TMDI.s.
IV. STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE OML, AND CSEAO.
`I'he Ohio iVlunicipal League (OML) is a non-proiit Ohio corporation composed of a
membership of rnore than 700 Ohio cities and viklages, Its webpage is
http:!/w\vw.omlohio.orgl. As stated in its by-laws, the purpose of the OMI., is the
improvement of municipal government and administration, and the promotion of the general
weli'are of the cities and villages of this State, by appropriate means, including, but not limited
to, maintaining a central bu.reau of information and research for cities and villages; promoting
confereTZces of municipal officials and short cottrses for, the discussion and study of municipal
problems and techniques involved in their solution; publishizlg and circulating an official
magazine and; periodic butletin.s and reports on issues affecting imnicipal governments; and
fr,rmulathig ar.d supporting sound tiiunicipal policies. Consistent with these principles, the
OIvXL engages from time to time in the filing of briefs and other legal memoranda in Ohio':s
courtsto support important issues affecting Ohio's cities and villages.
The County Sanitary Engin.eers Association of Ohio (CSEAO) is an affiliate
association of the Couzity Commissioners' Association of Ohio, a z-ion-protit corporation; The
C'SEAO's webpage is http:/Iwww.cseao.orgl. I`he CSEAO's membership consists of saiaitary
engineers, utilities directors, superintendents, and other management staff responsible for fhe
delivery of wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water seivzces to all of Ohio's 88 counties.
CSEAO's primary goal is to raise the technical and non-teclznical. standards of these services
rendered to the general public by establishing a central point for reference and group
d"rsc;ussion of mutual problems affecting all of Ohio's counties. Consistent with tl-iese
principles, the CSEAO engages fronl time to time in the tiling of briefs and other legal
rriem.oranda :in Ohio's courts to support important issues affecting the delivery of these
services in Ohio's 88 counties.
"I'he menabers of the OML and CSEAO provide valuable public services thM protect
public health and the environment, a.nd do so ever more often on budgets that are tiinded
almost exclusively bv the citizens and businesses in their respective communities. As such,
their operating/improvement budgets are constrained by thenumber of citizens and businesses
tl3at utilize these sef_vices, what rates those citizens and businesses cari afford, and tivhat rate
increases etected public o-ffrcials are able to approve. Rulin,gs that potentially impact the
already-st:rained fixiancial resources of owners of POTWs across Ohio are vitally important to
tl-ie members of these organizations.
The members of these two organizatioiTs operate hundreds of small, mediuni and large
POTWs in Ohio, spending millions of dollars atanually to produce a higla quality effluent that
has enabled dramatic improvements to occur in both chernical and biological water quality in
rivers and streanxs across the State of Ohio. Two factors drive tiie interests of amicus curiae
in the outcame of this ai?laea(, First, both U.S. EPA. and Ohio EPA agree that noil-point
sources, such as agricultural and stormwater runoff, and urbanization of watersheds, not point
sources such as POTWs, are by far the most significant rezna;itiing sources of pollutants
e7ltering rivers and streazns.' Second, requiring Ohio's POTWs to furYher reduce pollutant
loadings is rapidly reac;hiu;, if not already crossing, the point of dinainishitag returns,
requiring exponentially inereasirzt; investinents of capital and annua:l O&1V1 to remove ever
smaller guantities of pollutant loadings, stretching the lirraits of affordability for miiiim:hl
improveinents in water quality. Because Ohio EPA lias indicated tha4 it has developed so far,
and itrtends to develop in the future, TMDLs in nuinber that will virtually blanket the State of
Ohio,l the outcome of this case will: determine what protections OML and CSEAO's:members
will be provided as Ohio EPA stretches their shrinking revenues even further as the TMDL
program moves forward.
V. S'I'A'I'UTORY/RE GULA:TC9RY Fl_2A.1'vIEW(3WC.
OML and CSEAO agree with the statutory azld regulatory framework set fortb in the
Merit Brief filed by 1:•airfield County, and therefore izicorporate it hereiil by reference. By way
of supplementation thereof with reievant statutory authority, R.C. 6111.041 provides in pertinent
I See e:g. "What is Non-Point Source Pollution,"' available at
http:/!water,epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfni, and "Ohio's Nonpoint Source Program," uvailubie
at http://epa.ohio.gov%ds^^/nps/index.aspx (each last accessed on December 30, 2013).See "Ollio Total Maximum Daily Load Prograni Progress," available at
http;//www.epa.ohio.gov/Potals/35/tn-idi/TMDL_status ay2013.pdf (last accessed oit
Deceznbcr 30; 20 13 ). A^I
3
part as folltiws;
1,6111.041 Stdndards Of, WaterQuAlit
in fi.u-therance of sections 6111.01 to 6111.08 of the Revised Code, the director c!f
envirnianaetzttil protection shall adopt staarclarals of water clgdality to be rt,pplicable
to tOZewaters of tlae state. .S'tich stanlarcls slsall be adopted pursuant to a schedu:le
established, and from time to time a.mended; by the director, to apply to the
various waters of the state, in accordance avitit Clrapter II9of tlte Reviserl Code.
Such stanrlarcls shall be adopted in accordance with sectiorz 303 of the "Federai.
Water Pollution Control Aet" and. shall be clesignerl to improve aaxzl rraailztain tlie
qasality of such waters for the purpose of protectiaag the public healtli arirl
wectre, and to enuble tlae present and planned use of such waters for public
water secpplies, iirtlustrital and rzgricultctral needs, propagation of faslr; aquatic
life, anrt wildlife, aParl recreldtion(alpurposes,
R.C. 6111.041 (emphasis added). For the reasons set forth below, OML and CSEAO believe
that this statute is aii additional authority that controls the outcome of this appeal.
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
QML and CSEAO agree with the statenten:t of facts set forth in the iMerit Brief filed by
Fairtield County, and th-crefore incorporate it herein by refereiice.
VII. ARGUMENT.
O1V1I^^ and CSTA() agree With tlie arguments set forth in the N.lerit Brief filed by Fairfield
Couilty, and therefore incorporate them herein by referenee. They provide the Court with the
fe>llowing additional arguments to sLippoi-t the position of Fairfield County.
A. The Big Walnut Creek Watershed TMDL Establishes A New Standard for
Water Qua.lgty for Phosphorus and '1'herefore Must Undergo Rulereiakffatl;
Pursgiaaat to the Requirements of R.C. 6111.041.
'I'he following facts are u-ndisputed.;
The TMDL at issue in this case isizpgses numeric standards of water quality for
phosphorus on Blacklick Creek and other waterbodies in the Big Walnut Creek watershed. See
4
,loint l:xhibit ("J.E.") 13 (TMDL) at pp. 24, 52-53 (establishing as a"target value" a maximum
phosphorus coneenti•ation of 0.11 mg/I for all waterbodies in the watershed).
2. The numeric "target values" for phosphorus established in the TMDL caine from
ai1 Ohio EPA technical gui.c(ance document that was not promulgated as a rule under Ohio law.
Icd. at p. 23-24 (showing soitrce of the values as the Ohio EPA technical report "Association
BetNeeTi Nutrients, 1-icrvitat, and the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Str-earns'° (Ohio EPA,
1999)); 13ocrr-cl of ' Commissioners of Fairfield County, Ohio v. Dit-ector of Environmerital
Pi•otection, 2013-Ohio-2106 j; 1, TTI 57, 76 (10"' App. Dist. 2013) (uncontested statement that tlie
technical report was tiever promulgated as a rule).
3, Ohio EPA has riot yet promulgated a numeric standard of water quality for
phosphorus for any waters of the. State of Ohio. See Ohio Adm. Code Cliapter 3745-1.3 See also
J.E. 13 (TMDL) at p. 23 ("...Qhio EPA does not citrrently have statewiae numeric criteria for
phosphoriis, . .:").
4. 'The waterbodies in the Big Walnut Creek watershed constitutes "waters of the
State of Ohio," See R.C. 6111.01(I4).
5. The nuineric phosphorus "target values" established in the TMDL are standards
of water quality for the waterbodies in the Big Walzzut Creek watershed TivIDL.
R,C. 6111.04I provides in pertinent part as follows:
In. furtherance of sections 6111.01 to 6111.08 oI'the Revised Code;, the director of
etivixozifnetptal pro•gecti®ct shall ceclopt starrclctt'ds of water qceality to be applicable
to tlte i-vaters of the staPe. Such standards slacall be adopted pursuant to a schedule
established, and from time to time amended, by the director, to apply to tlae
3 UTicfer Ohio Adinin. Code 3745-1-07, Table 7-11, Ohio EPA has promulgated a narrativestandard for phosphorus, stating that it shall be limited to the extent necessary to preventnuisance growths of algae; weeds, and slimes that result in a violation of narrative water qualitycriteria set forth in Section 3745-1-04(E), or cause taste or odor problems for public water
supplies.
5
various wcttei-s of the state, in accordance witli Cltrapter 119 of the Revised
Caate. >SucPi staaarlat-tls shall be adopted in. accordanee with section 303 of the
"Federal Water Pollution Control Aet" and shall be tlesigned to impf•ove ratrcl
anaidatain the quality of such waters for the preipcase of protectiaag the publichealth aaad wel,}`care, atict to enable the present arcil planzzeil use nf'such wrrtersfor public water stapplies, inrlristriccl aiicl agricultural needs, propagation offish,
ira,ucrtic life, ciiacl wildlafe; and recreational ptgtposes.
R,C. 6111.041 (emphasis aclded)< This statute states in clear and unecluivocal terms that Ohio
EPA must follow the rulemaking requirenients under R.C. Chapter 119 wlien adopting standards
of water quality for any waters of the State ofOhio. Even if th€. Court were to hold that the
phosphorus loading allocations, i.E., tize: "pollution diet," set fortli in the Big Walziut Creek
tivtlte.rsheti I'IVIDL does laot constitute "standards of water quality," the maximum allowable
pilospborus concentration (0. 11 rngll) established in the i'MDL for all waterbodies in the Big
Walnut Creek watershed clearly constitutes a"standard of water quality" for "waters of the State
of Ohio." Therefore, at a miriirnurti, Ohio EPA could not lawfuily impo:se a phosphorus
pollution diet for I'air-field County and other phosphorus sources in the watershecl derived fritxn
the 0.11 n1gf1 standarcl until that standard was first promulgated as a: rute u.nder R.C. Chapter 119.
Requiring that Ohio EPA follow tlae requiremeirts for ruleznakizlg under R.C. Chapter 119
would be consistent with previous holdings. of ERAC that have not permitted the Agency to
apply in permits standards of water quality fi•oxn reports or guidance that Iiad not iu7dergone the
procedures for rulern;aking, See e.g. Citizens Corranzittee to Preserve Lake Logan v. ffrilliwns,,
EBR No, 75-40, 1977 WL, 102b9 *18 (1VIay 27, 1977) overruled on other grvurids, Citizens
C:ornnzittee to Preserve Lake Logan v. yl'illiarns, 10 App. No. 77AP-755, 1978 WL 216923 (June
_2, .1978) (striking ammonia discharge limits from a permit because they were derived from
guidelijres that were not adopted as rules in accordance with R. C. Chapter 119); Oxford Mining
Contl?any; LLC v, Director af Eni;ironmentcl Protection, ERAC No. 12-256581, 2013 WL
6
5314482 **36-^ *37 (September 18, 2013) (striking down. water quality certification lirziits
derived from a"I'rimary Headwater Habitat" field rizariual that had not been prornulgated under
R.C. Chapter 119);
B. Requiring Ohio EPA to Comply with Ohio's Statutory RulemakingProcedures Provides Special Protections for Ohio's Coaanties and
Municipalities.
Formal rulemaking in the context of enviroilmental regulation affords a number of
irnportant safe:guards for local governr:ients; the purpose of which are to ensure that CJllio EPA
aird the General As:sembl), are fully aware of the fiscal and technical consequences of proposed.
rulc;making on Ohio's finaricially-strapped con2rrzunities.
For example, as part of the rulemaking process, Ohio EPA in.ust develop a Rule Summary
and Fiscal A:nalysis ("RSFA"). R.C: 127.1$. An RSFA requires Ohio EPA to suznmarize the
costs aild benefits of all proposed rules. The General Assenlbly added the RSFA recluiretnent
with a particular concern for the effect of rules on local governnzezats, requiring "zn; the RSFA that
Okzzo EPA determine "[i]f the rule has a fiscal effect on school districts, counties, townships, or
:muiiicipal corporatioras..,." R.C.. 127.18(B)(8)-(10). And if a,proposeci rule is determined to
fiscally eflcct; school'. districts or local governments, Ohio EPA is subject to three specific
additional. recluiremeiits:
1, The Agency must deterrnine "an estimate in dollars of the cost of complialicewith
the rule." R.C. 127.18(B)(8).
2. If the rule derives fro.tn a federal requirement (as a TiVIDI, clearly does), the
AgeJZCv must provide a"clear explanation that tlie proposed state rule does not exceed the scope
and izltent of the [federal] requirement." R.C. 127:18(13)(q): And if the rule exceeds the
ininirnum necessary federal requirement(s), the Agetiey must provide a "a justification of the
7
excess cost, and an estimate of the costs, including those costs for local gc>vernYnents, exceeding
the federal requirement." Iel;
3. The Agency must develop a"cornlarehe. nsive cost estimate" for the new rule that
iztcludes "the procedure and method of calculating the costs of compliarYce and identifies major
cost categories including personnel costs, new equipment or other capital costs, operating costs,
and inclirect central service costs related to the rule." R.C. 127.18(13)(10),
Irnpor'tantly, the RSFA must also "includa a written explanation of the agency's and the
affected local goverriment's ability to pay f'or: the new requirements and a statement of any
impact tho rule will have on economic deuelopment." Id. Ohio EPA must also submit the RSFA
to JCARR, the Secretary of State, and the Legislative Service Commission for their review and
consideration. R.C. 127.18(C)-(E); 1 19, Q3 (13);
As part of formal rulemaking, Ohio EPA must also complete an Environmental
A.menclment?Adoption Form. R.C. 121.39. This requ.irement applies specifically to rules
concerning environr.nental protection. R.C. 121,39(A). It requires Ohio EPA to take several
steps prior to adopting a rule or an amendrnerit proposed to a rule dealing with envirUnmerztal
protection or coxttaining a component dealing vaitli eiwironn,ienta:l protection, including
consulting with organizations that represent political subdivisions affected by the proposed rule
or aniendment, R.C. 121,39(l))(1):
These steps may appear perfunctory but they are not. They provide atl important and
necessary dialogue between Ohio EPA and local governments in the rulemaking process, and
they force Ohio EPA to carefully consider and docurnent potential irnpacts of proposed rules on
Ohio's local governments, Specifically in the context of developinent of TM,DLs, they would
help the General Assembly and Secretary of State to understand the significant costs and
8
technical feasibility issues associated with publicly owned wastewater treatment plants having to
corn.pl'zance with stritzgent TIVII)L-laased discharge staridards:
C. [f TMDLs are trot Required to Be Promulgated Under Ohio Law, O9iio EPA
will Have Virtually Unfettered Discretion to Establish Waterbody-Sg3ecirle
Standards Across the State, Further Straining the Resources of Ohio's LocalGovernments.
Under R.C: 6111.441, Ohio EPA rnust follow rulein.akiirg procedlires wh:eil adopting
standards of water quality for waters of the State. Ifthat requirement only applies to standards
that are statewide in application, a.nd the Agency is free to develop watershed-specific or
waterbody-specific standards of water quality without following the rufemaking procedures;
nntliing "iould stop Ohio EPA froni dissecting Ohio's rivers an.d streains iilto sets and subsets of
watez•bodies. It covtld then develop mandatory standards of water quality across the entire State
of Ohio using the TMDL process with virtual impunity, thereby potentially rendering the
statutory obligations of R.C. 6111,04111.Q41 a nullity. Whether standards of water quality are
developed ozi a statewidebasis, a regiotial ba5is, or even on a creek-by-creek basis should not
make a difference in tenns of the procedure to be followed.
If this Court does not rule in favor of FairfieId County and reign in, Ohio EPA now in the
context of the Big Walnut Creek watershed TMDL, this risk, and the resulting additional strain
on the local resources of OML and CSEAO's members, are threats that are far too real to be
ignored.
Nrlll. CONCLUSION.
For all of the reasons set forth above and in the i'Vlerit Brieffil4d by Fairfield County, this
Cotzrt sliould reverse the decision below, and declare that the Big Wa.lnut Creek watershed
I.Iv1I3L is null and voi.d and cannot be applied until such time as Ohio EPA undertakes proper
rulemaking procedures.
9
Respectfully submitted,67^^j: -r, L i^^^`^<^3ciz`}^^^
STE H N. HAUGHE'Y (#001
'
0459^Counsel of RecordFROST BROWN TODD LLC301 E. Fourth StreetCincinnati, OH 45202Telephone (513) 651-6127Facsimile: (513) 651-6981shaugheyCfbtlaw.comSTEPHEN J. SMITH (#0001344)FROST BIt:OW-N TODD LLC10 W. Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: (614) 464-1211Facsimile: (614) [email protected] GOTHERMAN (40000504)OHIO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE175 S. Third Street, ,#510Columbus, Ohio 43215-7100Telephone: (614) 221-4349Facsimile: (614) [email protected] For Ohio Municipal League AndCounty Sanitar y Engineers Association Of Ohio
IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Merit Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio
Municipal League and County Sanitary Engineers Association of Ohio was sent via regular U.S.
mail this 30'h day of December, 2013, upon the following counsel of record:
MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181)Attorney General of OhioERIC E. MURPHY (0083284)State SolicitorCounsel of RecordSAMUEL C. I'ETERSON (00831432)Deputy SolicitorL. SCOTT HELKOWSKI (0068622)ALAiNA R. SHOCKEY (0085234)
10
Assistant Attorneys GeneralOhio Attorney General's Office30 East Broad Street, 17th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Counsel for Appellee Scott NallyDirector of Environmental Protection
LINDA S. WOGGON (0059082)OHIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE230 East Town StreetColumbus, Ohio43215Counsel for Amicus Ohio CiaambeN of Cominerce
JESSICA E. DEMONTE (0072414)ANDREW O. ETTER (0085013)SQtiateF S^^^ERs LLP2000 Huntington Center41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215,TOHNT D. LAZZARETTI (0080780)SQUIRE SANDERs LLP4900 Key Tower127 Public SquareCleveland, Ohio 44114Counselfor Amicus Association of Ohio ltletr•opolitan Wastewater Agencies
fy/- ^ ' ri^'`^,.?-.',3,ai^+.. . ^'. .
Steplien N. Haughey
C NLibrary 0727546,06Q9561 3190677v i
11